This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

Originally Posted by teamosil

Explain to me how you think it works. A law enforcement agency is given a budget of say $40 billion and it would cost $10 trillion to catch everybody violating a law it is charged with enforcing. Are you saying they should just blow the $40 billion on the first cases that happen to cross its path no matter how much it costs and then let everybody else go? Of course not. It needs to use its discretion to try to accomplish the most good with its finite resources. Right?

How about partnering with State and local LE for enforcement of immigration laws. How about streamlining deportation to minimize court costs? How about instead of just letting illegal aliens stay, do something to reduce/stop the influx of illegal entery into the US.

You are correct that with a finite resources and funding choices have to be made. That happens all the time. Still does not make it right for those who break our immigration laws. Our system does need to be overhauled. We need a better migrant labor guest program. We need a swifter/more economical method to deport illegal aliens. Our legal system for handling many violations of law is way to costly.

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

What do you think will happen when farmers are forced to actually pay min wage for workers? Do you think the farmers will just eat the additional cost or what?

Employee costs are a small fraction of the overall cost of a product. Most farmers do not use illegals.

Of course food prices will go up.

Nowhere near as high as what the pro-illegals claim.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

Originally Posted by AdamT

So it has nothing to do with stepped up enforcement and border security. That would indicate to me that there's no point in further boosting enforcement and border security, because those efforts have NO effect.

If Law Enforcement is on the Border, why would they run toward it? If they got caught in the U.S.even exiting they lose their ability to come back legally, do you think they're all stupid?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."- John Adams

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

If Law Enforcement is on the Border, why would they run toward it? If they got caught in the U.S.even exiting they lose their ability to come back legally, do you think they're all stupid?

Erm ... What? I was talking about border patrol. You know, those folks who are tasked with preventing illegals from entering the country?

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

If employee costs were only a small fraction, we wouldn't be having the problem with illegals because NOBODY would be hiring them.

The fact is that it isn't just a small fraction and it is significant or they wouldn't be doing it. Who wants to risk getting their business fined for a "small fraction"?

What risk? A quick internet search turns up no massive fines or arrests for hiring illegal alien labor, since the Postville raid. Most use 1099 contract labor to safely avoid any problems. In my last construction job (framing houses) half the crew was illegal, but I never saw any ICE problems.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

Originally Posted by teamosil

The power to execute the law is given to the president in the constitution, not to the Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is part of that power. That has been thoroughly established in the courts for many decades.

Cite where in the constitution it cites the President has discretion ...

Originally Posted by teamosil

I think you just don't get the most basic elements of what is going on.

I think I do... President Obama is the "decider" who's decision is to not enforce immigration laws that have also been thoroughly established since it's founding, all for political points. No really, I DO get the most basic elements of what's going on here.

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

Originally Posted by Ockham

Cite where in the constitution it cites the President has discretion ...

Ask Justice Scalia:

“To ameliorate a harsh and unjust outcome, the INS may decline to institute proceedings, terminate proceedings or decline to execute a final order of deportation,” Justice Antonin Scalia, quoting from another writer, added in a 1999 Supreme Court decision.

And last time I checked, Art. 2 gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

And last time I checked, Art. 2 gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons.

Funny how you posted the piece, but didn't read it. From the same article:

“Deferred action, a form of prosecutorial discretion, is not a form of relief from removal … exercised on a categorical basis for large classes of aliens,” Napolitano stated then in response to GOP questions.

Deferred action is not a grant of reprieve or pardon (powers Obama has exercise in the past as the article notes).